Otlecs
07-17-2007, 02:37 PM
This is a bit stream-of-consciousness because I'm pushed for time, but wanted to brain dump while I think of it...
Every time somebody mentions Vista, they are greeted by derision and a bunch of opinionated responses that rarely address the problem at-hand so I thought I'd make an attempt at a facts only thread.
This is not a thread for "facts about Vista". It's a thread for "facts about multiboxing under Vista". Please keep that in mind. There are plenty of forums out there for arguing the pros and cons of various OSes.
I run many OSes. As I type this, two of my five machines I game on run Vista, the others run XP. That changes periodically, and they all multi-boot into other OSes, but that's irrelevant for this discussion.
To manage your expectations:
1. I do not have any affinity for Microsoft operating systems. I acknowledge the mountainous flaws in their offerings at least as quickly as anyone else.
2. I am not - NOT - suggesting that Vista is the best, most efficient platform on which to multibox. I am telling you that there's nothing inherently bad about it that makes it impossible.
3. I don't want to engage in discussion about which OS is best. If you're reading this, I'll assume you're saddled with Vista for better or worse and you're just looking for information.
4. These are MY PERSONAL experiences. Vista is an odd platform, and there are differences even between my machines running the same edition from the same OEM! Your experiences may differ.
So, that said, here's my experience to date:
Software / Hardware Compatibility
I use a G-15 keyboard (http://www.logitech.com/index.cfm/keyboards/keyboard/devices/180&cl=gb,en) and it works pretty much flawlessly. I say "pretty much" because the programmable (G) keys do sometimes just stop working! A quick restart of the Logitech software (from the tray icon) solves that, and it really doesn't happen very often.
Multiplicity (http://www.stardock.com/products/multiplicity/) works fine for me under all conditions. My standard setup sees my main machine running XP with the others as slaves.
The Multibox (http://www.dual-boxing.com/forums2/viewtopic.php?t=35) software running as a server on Vista has mixed results. It seems to work for some people, not for others. It doesn't *fully* work for me personally, although I use it in combination with Multiplicity and there may be some interaction problem.
It works just fine for me if the server machine is running XP, controlling Vista clients and that's my normal mode of operation.
Both the X-Keys Pro (http://www.x-keys.com/xkeys/xkpro.php) and Stick (http://www.x-keys.com/xkeys/xkstick.php) work fine under Vista and the new MacroWorksII (http://www.x-keys.com/software/mwiibeta.php) software is a joy. Especially when I compare it to the terrible interface the Mac version offers (note: that's just because it's bad software, not because the Mac is a bad platform!!).
I use the USB version of both products.
Keyclone (http://www.dual-boxing.com/forums2/viewtopic.php?p=2003) is not supported under Vista and there is no current intention for that to change. I have no information to date as to whether it actually works though.
Vista CAN comfortably run many instances of WoW
In response to a "it can't be done" throw-away comment from somebody, I have (just this moment) successfully run 5 full instances of WoW on my notebook. I have 2GB RAM, an Intel T7200 Core 2 running at 2Ghz and a 512Mb GeForce Go 7600 GT.
In other words, it's not even close to a game-optimised system.
The "Windows Experience Index" (ugh!) rating for my system is 4.5.
CPU usage was around 70% when moving around, and total system memory usage was pretty static at about 1.7Gb, with very little paging once loaded.
For that experiment, I just duplicated my WoW installation 5 times - mods and all - and fired it up. I minimised four of the instances and ran around Azuremist isle on a full screen WoW with the other four characters on follow.
I have no idea how it would perform in PvP, or instances, because my chosen mode of operation (until I find a fully comprehensive broadcasting application) is one-instance per box. I did this just to see if / prove that it could be done.
I also left all the normal Vista services running and didn't use any compatibility options in running WoW.
This is a very bog standard, basic system which has not been tuned in any way at all. I only have access to five accounts at the moment, so I couldn't say if it will support more. My gut feeling is that it could - the display was totally smooth and more playable than a single instance on my oldest notebook!
There's also a rumour going around that WoW on Vista uses "twice as much" memory as WoW under XP.
On my systems, a single instance of WoW uses pretty much the same memory.
Logging in the same character, in the same place, with the same mods and identical mod data (synchronised across my LAN), my XP WoW used 382,960K and the Vista one used 354,128K.
As implied above, this figure does not scale linearly per-instance - subsequent instances use far less memory.
That's all for now. As I said, I fully appreciate that peoples' experiences will vary, and I understand why some people are anti-Vista, but this post presents the simple facts of my experience to date.
Every time somebody mentions Vista, they are greeted by derision and a bunch of opinionated responses that rarely address the problem at-hand so I thought I'd make an attempt at a facts only thread.
This is not a thread for "facts about Vista". It's a thread for "facts about multiboxing under Vista". Please keep that in mind. There are plenty of forums out there for arguing the pros and cons of various OSes.
I run many OSes. As I type this, two of my five machines I game on run Vista, the others run XP. That changes periodically, and they all multi-boot into other OSes, but that's irrelevant for this discussion.
To manage your expectations:
1. I do not have any affinity for Microsoft operating systems. I acknowledge the mountainous flaws in their offerings at least as quickly as anyone else.
2. I am not - NOT - suggesting that Vista is the best, most efficient platform on which to multibox. I am telling you that there's nothing inherently bad about it that makes it impossible.
3. I don't want to engage in discussion about which OS is best. If you're reading this, I'll assume you're saddled with Vista for better or worse and you're just looking for information.
4. These are MY PERSONAL experiences. Vista is an odd platform, and there are differences even between my machines running the same edition from the same OEM! Your experiences may differ.
So, that said, here's my experience to date:
Software / Hardware Compatibility
I use a G-15 keyboard (http://www.logitech.com/index.cfm/keyboards/keyboard/devices/180&cl=gb,en) and it works pretty much flawlessly. I say "pretty much" because the programmable (G) keys do sometimes just stop working! A quick restart of the Logitech software (from the tray icon) solves that, and it really doesn't happen very often.
Multiplicity (http://www.stardock.com/products/multiplicity/) works fine for me under all conditions. My standard setup sees my main machine running XP with the others as slaves.
The Multibox (http://www.dual-boxing.com/forums2/viewtopic.php?t=35) software running as a server on Vista has mixed results. It seems to work for some people, not for others. It doesn't *fully* work for me personally, although I use it in combination with Multiplicity and there may be some interaction problem.
It works just fine for me if the server machine is running XP, controlling Vista clients and that's my normal mode of operation.
Both the X-Keys Pro (http://www.x-keys.com/xkeys/xkpro.php) and Stick (http://www.x-keys.com/xkeys/xkstick.php) work fine under Vista and the new MacroWorksII (http://www.x-keys.com/software/mwiibeta.php) software is a joy. Especially when I compare it to the terrible interface the Mac version offers (note: that's just because it's bad software, not because the Mac is a bad platform!!).
I use the USB version of both products.
Keyclone (http://www.dual-boxing.com/forums2/viewtopic.php?p=2003) is not supported under Vista and there is no current intention for that to change. I have no information to date as to whether it actually works though.
Vista CAN comfortably run many instances of WoW
In response to a "it can't be done" throw-away comment from somebody, I have (just this moment) successfully run 5 full instances of WoW on my notebook. I have 2GB RAM, an Intel T7200 Core 2 running at 2Ghz and a 512Mb GeForce Go 7600 GT.
In other words, it's not even close to a game-optimised system.
The "Windows Experience Index" (ugh!) rating for my system is 4.5.
CPU usage was around 70% when moving around, and total system memory usage was pretty static at about 1.7Gb, with very little paging once loaded.
For that experiment, I just duplicated my WoW installation 5 times - mods and all - and fired it up. I minimised four of the instances and ran around Azuremist isle on a full screen WoW with the other four characters on follow.
I have no idea how it would perform in PvP, or instances, because my chosen mode of operation (until I find a fully comprehensive broadcasting application) is one-instance per box. I did this just to see if / prove that it could be done.
I also left all the normal Vista services running and didn't use any compatibility options in running WoW.
This is a very bog standard, basic system which has not been tuned in any way at all. I only have access to five accounts at the moment, so I couldn't say if it will support more. My gut feeling is that it could - the display was totally smooth and more playable than a single instance on my oldest notebook!
There's also a rumour going around that WoW on Vista uses "twice as much" memory as WoW under XP.
On my systems, a single instance of WoW uses pretty much the same memory.
Logging in the same character, in the same place, with the same mods and identical mod data (synchronised across my LAN), my XP WoW used 382,960K and the Vista one used 354,128K.
As implied above, this figure does not scale linearly per-instance - subsequent instances use far less memory.
That's all for now. As I said, I fully appreciate that peoples' experiences will vary, and I understand why some people are anti-Vista, but this post presents the simple facts of my experience to date.